Abstract

The following response first points out the obvious methodological disadvantages of Oetke’s decline to use both primary and secondary sources for his interpretation of the sadvitīyaprayoga. Oetke believes that he is able to provide an “objectively adequate” presentation of the sp and describe “the objective properties” of its content without taking the historical context into account. By divorcing meaning from context, he distorts the presumed original meaning and intention of the sp, and superimposes on it an anachronistic concern with what he calls “the extrapolation principle.” The second part of the response explores the usage of the term sapakṣa as a collective term.